Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Two points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellant. In the first place it is urged that the reference was incompetent as sugar was a controlled industry and only the Central Government could have made the reference and not the State Government. Secondly, it is urged that the order of the tribunal granting an increment of Rs. 30 per month to Ramkrishna Prasad was patently perverse and that there was no change in the status or emoluments of Ramkrishna Prasad by the creation of the new post and the employment of Babulal Parekh on it. So far as the question of the competence of the reference is concerned, we are of opinion that there is no force in it, A similar question was raised before this Court in The Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Another (1) and it was held there on the language of s. 2(a)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that before that provision could apply to a controlled industry there must be a notification by the Central Government for the purposes of s. 2(a)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2(a)(1) is in these terms-

" I Appropriate Government' means in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as maybe specified in this behalf by the Central Government, or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil-field or a, major port, the Central Government. "

The argument is that as sugar is a controlled industry under the Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, No. 65 of 1951, the appropriate (1) [1960] 2 S.C.R- 982, Government for the purposes of s. 2(a)(1) with reference to the sugar Industry is the Central Government. Reliance is placed on the words " concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government " appearing in s. 2 (a)(1). It is true that sugar is a controlled industry under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, but that in our opinion does not conclude the matter. In order that the appropriate government under s. 2(a)(1) may be the Central Government for a controlled industry, it is necessary that such controlled industry should be specified by the Central Government for the purposes of s. 2(a)(1). This in our opinion is obvious from the words " controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government "

appearing in s. 2(a)(1). It is not enough that an industry should be a controlled industry to attract this provision of s. 2(a)(1) ; it is further necessary that it should be specified in this behalf, namely for the purposes of s. 2(a)(1), as a controlled industry by the Central Government, before the Central Government can become the appropriate government within the meaning of s. 2(a)(1). We may in this connection refer to Firebricks and Potteries Ltd., etc. v. Firebricks and Potteries Ltd. Workers Union Ltd. (1) where the same view has been taken. We are of opinion that is the correct meaning of these words appearing in s. 2(a)(1), as already held in The Bijoy Cotton Mills Ltd. (2) . The objection that the reference was not competent therefore fails.